Copenhaver v. Warden

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 5/2/2017. (cags, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
JAMES ADAM COPENHAVER,

*

Petitioner,

*

v.

*

WARDEN,

*

Civil Action No. PWG-15-1070

*

Respondent.

***
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Respondent seeks dismissal of James Adam Copenhaver's

pro se Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. 92241 for lack of exhaustion and mootness. Resp. ECF NO.5.
I granted Copenhaver an opportunity to respond, ECF ~o. 6, but he has not done so.

,.

The matter is ready for disposition. After considering the pleadings,

exhibits, and

applicable law, I find a hearing is unnecessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For reasons
discussed below, I will DENY AND DISMISS the Petition with prejudice.
Discussion
Copenhaver,
Correction,

who is an inmate in the custody of the Maryland Commissioner

claims the Maryland Parole Commission

("Parole Commission")

of

violated his

constitutional rights by not conducting a timely hearing to determine whether he violated the
conditions of his mandatory supervised release.

As relief, he asks to be provided a revocation

hearing or release to his previous parole conditions. Pet. 2, ECF No. 1.1
Absent a valid excuse, a state prisoner seeking federal habeas corpus relief must first
present each of his claims to the state courts having jurisdiction to consider them. 28 U.S.C. 9
2254(b),(c); Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule l(b)
(authorizing rules to apply to habeas petitions under 92241); Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152,
161-65 (1996); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722,731-32
1

Citations to Petition refer to CM/ECF page numbers.

(1991); Castille v. Peoples, 489

U.S. 346,349- 52 (1989). Exhaustion requires presenting the claim to the state's highest court.
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842-49 (1999). J(espondent avers that Copenhaver neither
filed any petitions in state court concerning a revocation hearing nor sought judicial review to
challenging the Parole Commission's May 26, 2015 de~ision to revoke his mandatory supervised
release. Resp. 2; Maryland Judiciary Case Search, Resp. Ex. 2, ECF No. 5-3. As Copenhaver
does not demonstrate exhaustion of state court remedies, his Petition must be dismissed for lack
of exhaustion.
Respondents

also assert that since this Copenhaver

filed this Petition, the Parole

Commission held a hearing to determine whether he violated the conditions of his mandatory
supervised release, and on May 26, 2015, revoked his release. Blumberg Aff., Resp. Ex. 1, ECF
No.5-I,

Parole Commission Decision, Resp., Attach. A., ECF No. 5-2. Because Copenhaver has

received the relief he sought in the Petition, it is moot. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7
(1998) (stating a habeas petition is moot when there is no longer a case or controversy
presented). Accordingly, this case will be dismissed as moot.
Lastly, the Petition does not satisfy the standard for a Certificate of Appealabilty, which
may issue only if there is a substantial showing of the denial 'of a constitutional right, see 28
U.S.C. S2253(c).
Conclusion
For these reasons the Petition shall be DENIED AND DISMISSED with prejudice, and a
Certificate of Appealability SHALL NOT ISSUE
A separate Order follows.

Date

/7-

Paul W. 'rimm
United States District Judge

2